570806

research-article2015

ELR0010.1177/1035304615570806The Economic and Labour Relations ReviewLa Nauze

ELRR

Article

Sexual orientationbased
wage gaps in Australia: The
potential role of discrimination
and personality

The Economic and

Labour Relations Review
2015, Vol. 26(1) 6081
The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1035304615570806
elrr.sagepub.com

Andrea La Nauze

University of Melbourne, Australia

Abstract
This article reports a research finding that lesbians in Australia earn an unexplained
wage premium of 0%13%, whereas gay men experience an unexplained negative
wage gap of 8%18%. Based on data from the Australian household panel Household
Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia, the article is the first to establish these
gaps in Australia, and to examine the degree to which credence can be afforded
to claims that endowments such as personality traits may help explain such wage
differentials. Using ordinary least squares and BlinderOaxaca decomposition
methods, the study explicitly includes the battery of Big Five personality traits
in wage regressions and estimates the contribution of endowments and returns
to these traits. The finding is that personality traits and returns to them do not
differ along lines of sexual orientation. Gay men in particular suffer a substantial
unexplained wage penalty in the workplace. Such unexplained differences suggest
that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, though unlawful, may exist in
Australia.
JEL Codes: J15, J71
Keywords
Discrimination, personality, sexual orientation, wage decomposition, wage
determination, wage gaps

Corresponding author:
Andrea La Nauze, Department of Economics, University of Melbourne, 111 Barry St, Carlton, VIC 3053,
Australia.
Email: ala1@unimelb.edu.au; andrea.lanauze@gmail.com

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

61

La Nauze

Introduction
Do homosexual workers in Australia suffer wage gaps that cannot be explained by their
observable characteristics? To what extent do these gaps reflect differences in personality? This article attempts to answer these two questions, and in so doing, to provide evidence for or against the notion that homosexual workers suffer from wage discrimination.
Wage discrimination exists when two otherwise identical workers are paid different
wages because of a characteristic such as gender, race or sexual orientation (Becker,
1971). In Australia, discrimination of this form is illegal and rights are protected under
state and federal law. While the persistent gender pay gap has been well studied, stronger
concern for and recognition of gay and lesbian rights has resulted in a new focus on
labour market discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Raw and unexplained
gaps in wages between homosexual and heterosexual workers have been identified
across the developed world (Badgett, 2006). These gaps are generally negative for gay
men and positive or zero for lesbians. In this article, I make two contributions to the
study of wage gaps that might be attributed to sexual orientation. First, I establish whether
raw and unexplained wage gaps of this kind exist in Australia. Second, I explore whether
stereotypical differences in personality characteristics exist that might explain or reduce
the estimated gap.
A small but growing body of literature has sought to identify whether gaps in wages
along lines of sexual orientation are the result of observable differences in worker characteristics. Gaps that are not explained by differences in observable characteristics are
often interpreted as discrimination. In the United States, these estimates range from 2%
to 27% for gay men, and from 0% to 40% for lesbians (Allegretto and Arthur, 2001;
Antecol etal., 2007; Badgett, 1995; Berg and Lien, 2002; Black etal., 2003; Elmslie and
Tebaldi, 2007; Klawitter and Flatt, 1998). In Sweden, Ahmed and Hammarstedt (2010)
found unexplained wage gaps of up to 15% for gay men but no significant gap for lesbians. Other studies include Carpenter (2008) in Canada, Ahmed and Hammarstedt
(2010), Plug and Berkhout (2004, 2008) in the Netherlands, and Arabsheibani etal.
(2005) in the United Kingdom. These studies broadly confirm the pattern of negative
differentials for gay men and positive differentials for lesbians.
Taken together, these studies indicate that the wage penalty for gay men is robust and
persistent over time but suggest greater uncertainty regarding the pay differential for
lesbians. At this point, only one study has investigated whether the gap (for gay men) is
declining over time. Clarke and Sevak (2013) find that the gay male penalty in the United
States has declined, becoming a wage premium by the early 2000s. No study to date has
identified whether a sexual orientation-based wage gap exists in Australia. My focus
here is on establishing the average gap over the period 20012010 in Australia. Although
we may expect gaps to be similar to those identified for the United States and for
European countries, the variation in the magnitude of the estimated effects across countries and across time suggests that an Australian study is warranted.
Any explanation for the sexual orientation wage gap that does not imply discrimination must account for the asymmetric pattern of these gaps by gender. Here, my focus is
on the role that personality characteristics of workers might play in determining wages,
and in particular what role they might play in explaining wage differences along lines of
sexual orientation. Thus far, this explanation has not been explored in the literature.

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

62

The Economic and Labour Relations Review 26(1)

Recent trends in the wage literature suggest that personality is an important noncognitive skill or behavioural trait (Bowles etal., 2001) and personality has been
shown to have important impacts on labour market outcomes including wages (see,
for example, Nyhus and Pons (2005) and Cobb-Clark and Schurer (2012)). Including
personality as a productivity-related characteristic has been shown to reduce the estimate of the gender pay gap (Mueller and Plug, 2006; Nyhus and Pons, 2012). In their
study of Dutch employees, for example, Nyhus and Pons (2012) find that endowments of personality traits differ across men and women, and that these differences
explain up to 11.5% of the gap in wages. They thus find that to some extent women
are paid less in the workplace because of their personality types, and not because the
returns to women are lower (i.e. they find less evidence for discrimination). It is
therefore feasible that differences in endowments of personality, rather than differences in the returns to the same personality types, may cause differences in wages
along lines of sexual orientation.
Psychologists have established that people commonly hold beliefs about how the personality traits of gay men and lesbians differ from those of heterosexual men and women
(Kite and Deaux, 1987; Madon, 1997). One such stereotype is that gay men are less
aggressive and more emotional than heterosexual men, and that gay women are more
aggressive than heterosexual women. Stereotypical beliefs of this nature have been
found both historically and in contemporary society (see, for example, Blashill and
Powlishta (2009) and Madon (1997)). This literature suggests that controlling for personality may therefore explain the differences in wages along lines of sexual orientation
(Badgett, 2006). However, no previous study has had access to information on the personality traits of individuals in their sample. My sample pools data from the Household
Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey covering the years 2001
2010.1 This detailed dataset provides a rich set of covariates for individuals and their
households. The HILDA survey allows for the identification of sexual orientation of
coupled respondents alongside personality traits.
To identify the impacts of personality on wages, I use the Big Five classification
of personality traits as covariates in a wage regression. The Big Five is a classification
of personality types based on five traits: Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience. In contrast to stereotypes of gay men
and women, I find that within gender groups, personality traits are on average consistent across sexual orientation. Moreover, I find that although wages are affected by
personality traits, this effect is the same for heterosexual and homosexual workers. Not
only does this refute the stereotypes of personality, but it also suggests that wage gaps
cannot simply be attributed to differences in personality that are valued in the workplace. Including personality traits in the wage equation does not lead to a reduction in
the unexplained gap. With and without personality traits, homosexual men experience
a penalty of 11%13%, while heterosexual women also receive a penalty of 11%. In
further robustness checks, this gap expands to a range of 8%18% penalty for gay men
and 0%13% for heterosexual women. The range of these results is within that of previous studies despite the fact that such studies have not been able to control for personality. This suggests that these previous estimates may in fact be robust to differences in
personality.

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

63

La Nauze

The remainder of the article is structured as follows. The next section describes theoretical and empirical models of wage determination and discusses empirical strategies to
identify wage gaps. The data and estimation strategy are then outlined before the results
are presented. The results are discussed in the following section before concluding
remarks are made.

Models of wage discrimination

Theoretical frameworks
A number of theories attempt to explain differences in wages along lines of gender, or
sexual orientation, without relying on an explanation of discrimination. In part, the
purpose of these models is to clarify whether differences in wages could be due to nondiscriminatory processes and thus to what extent we can interpret wage gap estimates
as evidence of discrimination. To adequately explain wage differentials along lines of
sexual orientation, such theoretical models must generate predictions of the wage gap
that differ by gender. One approach starts with the recognition that the household is
the decision-making unit; members of a household can specialise in the production of
home or market goods (Becker, 1981). In heterosexual couples, women are often
assumed to have a comparative advantage in home production. The observed marriage premium for heterosexual males (i.e. higher wages that cannot be explained by
observable characteristics) could reflect the unobserved acquisition of human capital
for market production. This, however, is not established empirically. Still, explanations along these lines could explain the higher wages received by lesbians. Black
etal. (2003) argue that lesbians may anticipate a greater need to specialise in market
production, leading to an expected wage premium over their heterosexual counterparts. They suggest that in contrast, relative to heterosexual men, gay males may
anticipate less of a need to specialise in market production. If this is the case, then
observed wage gaps may be due to unobserved productivity differences rather than
discrimination.
A related theory focuses on the role of household income. Berg and Lien (2002) argue
that households take gender-based labour market discrimination as a given when making
specialisation and investment decisions. Given this discrimination, an individual with a
male partner (gay men and heterosexual women) has a higher expected household
income than one with a female partner (heterosexual men and gay women). Gay men and
heterosexual women may therefore choose higher levels of leisure as a substitute for
income and/or specialise in home production.
This article sheds further light on how well the income and household specialisation
theories account for observed wage gaps in Australia. Another possibility for the existence of unexplained wage gaps the possibility focused on here is that unobserved
personality characteristics explain differences in wages along lines of sexual preference.
To test this, I examine whether personality is correlated with sexual preference and
whether this control factor has an impact on estimates of the wage gap. This may be the
case if personality traits such as self-control or conscientiousness affect productivity in
the workplace (as has been found in the literature). The next section outlines the main
empirical models of wage gaps before going on to outline the data and results.

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

64

The Economic and Labour Relations Review 26(1)

Empirical frameworks
Making the assumption that the log of wages is a linear function of covariates, the following model can be specified
log ( wi ) = X i + H i + i
where Xi is a vector of characteristics and Hi is an indicator for whether or not individual i
is homosexual (homosexual=1) (either specified jointly or separately for men and women).
The parameter thus captures the effect of sexual orientation on wages conditional on the
characteristics Xi and as such is the parameter of interest. First, I include a standard set of
covariates in the vector Xi and then add controls for personality to this vector to capture
differences in wages due to different personality characteristics. Importantly, this ordinary
least squares (OLS) model assumes that the return to productivity characteristics is independent of sexuality. To relax this assumption, the log wages of individual i in group g can
be modelled separately (again potentially separately for women and men). The wage gap
(evaluated at the mean) can be decomposed into the portion of the gap attributable to different observable characteristics (endowments) and the portion of gap attributable to different returns to these characteristics (coefficients) (Blinder, 1973; Oaxaca, 1973). This
approach is referred to as the BlinderOaxaca decomposition.
The BlinderOaxaca model allows returns to differ by group status. The model of
wages becomes
log( wi , g ) = g X i , g + i , g
where g=h,s denotes each group. Then the BlinderOaxaca model decomposes the log
wage gap into
log (Wh ) log (Ws ) = s ( X h X s ) + X h ( h s ) + ( X h X s )( h s )
where Wh is the average wage for homosexual workers, Ws is the average wage for
heterosexual workers, and Xh and Xs are the mean characteristics for homosexual and
heterosexual workers, respectively. The term Xh (h s) is the gap attributable to different returns to characteristics and is often interpreted as discrimination. The term (Xh Xs)
(h s) is an interaction term accounting for the fact that differences in coefficients and
endowments occur together. This is the threefold decomposition outlined in Jann (2008).
All empirical models rely on a range of assumptions in order to produce unbiased,
consistent and efficient estimates of the parameters of interest. Two particular identification issues are unique to the study of wages and sexual orientation. The first relates to the
ability of employers to discriminate. Unlike gender or race, sexual orientation is not a
trait that is necessarily visible to employers. Some individuals may then be modelled as
if they were being paid as homosexuals when in fact they are being paid as heterosexuals.
Estimates of the unexplained wage gap will then be biased, particularly if disclosure (or

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

65

La Nauze

indeed sexual orientation itself) is a function of wages (Badgett, 2006) or if workers have
an incentive to hide their homosexuality. In the example outlined above, if workers identified as homosexual do suffer discrimination, then incorrectly modelling a worker as
heterosexual would reduce average heterosexual wages and lead to an underestimate of
the magnitude of the gap.
Compounding this problem are practical difficulties faced by the researcher seeking
to classify respondents according to their sexual orientation based on available data.
All studies of wage discrimination in the literature rely on some form of survey data
and utilise a range of different methods to identify an individuals sexual orientation.
Some studies use a measure based on the ratio of same sex to heterosexual partners an
individual has had; some use only self-identification measures; and others use formal
registration of same sex relationships. Different measures will result in different estimated effects (Badgett, 2006; Black etal., 2003). Badgett (2006) argues that selfreports of sexual orientation are preferable on the assumption that individuals who
self-report are more likely to be out in the workplace. However, there is no formal
evidence that tests this hypothesis. My identification relies on the gender of a respondents partner (as no other measures are available for the HILDA panel I utilise). In this
way, I investigate the wage gap for workers in same sex relationships. To test the
robustness of the estimates to the identification strategy used, two different methods
are used, which are outlined below.
Selection into the labour market, into full-time employment and into occupations may
also lead to inaccurate estimation of the wage structure. In order to avoid confounding
my results with selection into the labour market, I focus on respondents who are
employed. This does not reduce the possibility of selection problems into full-time (vs
part-time or casual) employment or occupation. Arulampalam etal. (2007) suggest that
controls for industry and occupation may be endogenous. These measures may represent
unmeasured human capital but may also be correlated with other unobservable measures
of productivity. In the case of gender wage gaps, they suggest that estimates with (without) controls for occupation provide a lower (upper) estimate of discrimination. The
same analysis can be readily applied to the estimation of wage gaps by sexual orientation
to deal with potential selection into both full-time employment and occupation. Estimates
with and without occupation controls are presented and, although the details are not
included, the results were also checked for robustness to specifications dropping employment type.
In their survey of decomposition methods, Fortin etal. (2010) suggest that endogeneity bias may not be a significant issue for wage decomposition. They suggest that as
long as an assumption of ignorability holds, aggregate decompositions of wage gaps (as
per the BlinderOaxaca decomposition) yield valid estimates. Ignorability implies that
given a set of covariates X, the unobservables contained in the error are independent
of group membership. Intuitively, this means that the joint densities of observables and
unobservables for each group must be similar. Fortin etal. (2010) show that when this
assumption replaces the standard identification assumption, the aggregate wage gap can
be decomposed into returns to characteristics and distributions of characteristics (X and
) and consistently estimated. However, detailed decompositions still require the
stronger assumption of independence (and interpretation is limited). They also note that

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

66

The Economic and Labour Relations Review 26(1)

ignorability is violated if selection on unobservable characteristics differs across groups.

I make the assumption that, conditional on observable characteristics, selection on
unobservable characteristics does not differ by sexual orientation. To provide context,
this assumption would be violated if high-productivity gay men choose different occupations from high-productivity heterosexual men because of the perception of greater
homophobia in some industries, and this occupational choice affects their wage rate. To
avoid confounding results with selection, several robustness checks were undertaken, as
indicated above.

Data
As noted, the sample for this study comes from pooling observations from the HILDA
survey over the years 20012010. HILDA is a nation-wide panel dataset of Australian
households collecting a wide range of household and individual information. The sample
is restricted to employed respondents between the ages of 22 and 60years.22The HILDA
survey for waves 110 does not ask respondents directly about their sexual orientation.
Identification of gay respondents therefore relied on being able to identify same sex
couples. A respondent was classified as homosexual if they reported living with a partner
of the same sex. The base specification assumes that those not living in a same sex relationship are heterosexual. As a robustness exercise, I then classified someone living in a
relationship with a person of the opposite sex as heterosexual, and excluded all individuals not living in a relationship.
If there were discrimination, then it seems reasonable that this base strategy of identifying sexual orientation would tend to yield an underestimate of it. However, the
co-habiting couples in my sample may be more likely to be openly identified as homosexual in the workplace. If this is the case and there is discrimination against openly
gay workers, then I may overestimate discrimination experienced by the average
homosexual worker.
Once the sample is restricted to homosexual and heterosexual couples, the detailed
information available in the HILDA survey also allows inclusion of the characteristics of
a respondents partner in the regression. Theories of household specialisation suggest
that these covariates may be important in individual decisions to invest in human capital
(Becker, 1981; Berg and Lien, 2002; Black etal., 2003).
The additional robustness checks undertaken to address potential weaknesses in how
homosexual or heterosexual groups are classified are as follows. First, I create a second
sample of homosexual respondents. An observation can be classified based on whether
they are living with a same sex partner; this is the main identification strategy of the
article. Alternatively, a respondent can be classified based on whether they have lived
with a same sex partner in any wave. Respondents who have participated in more waves
of the HILDA survey are more likely to be recorded in HILDA as living with a partner
and therefore be identified as gay.
The base sample consists of 4743 men and 4945 women. In the pooled sample used
for estimation, 36 men and 56 women were identified as living in a same sex relationship. The sample of identified gay men and women is thus very small relative to that of
the heterosexual sample. As a point of reference, just 1% of couples were in a same sex

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

67

La Nauze

relationship in the 2011 Census (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2013). Indeed,
only 28% of people identifying as homosexual reported being in a couple relationship
compared to 58% for heterosexual respondents (ABS, 2013). The relative size of the
sample used here is thus fairly consistent with the size of the same sexcoupled population. Given the small size of the homosexual sample and the large size of the heterosexual sample, interpretation of the results should also be appropriately qualified. Although
HILDA is designed to be a representative panel, the results from this small sample (as
from any small sample) may not generalise well to the entire Australian population.
The dependent variable for all estimations is the log of real hourly wages for an individual in his or her main job. The estimations all include controls for age, education,
experience, state, job tenure, labour force status (working full time, part time or causal),
number of children, occupation tenure, place of birth (Australia or elsewhere), language
background (English as first language or not), employed in smallmedium enterprise
(business with less than 100 employees) and union status. Importantly, the experience
variable (measured in years of full-time work experience) is not constructed based on
assumed years in the workforce as is standard practice, but is derived directly from
detailed work history information collected in HILDA.
In waves 5 and 9 (2005 and 2009), HILDA provides five measures of personality
traits known as the Big Five. Appendix 1 provides a detailed description of these personality indices. Cobb-Clark and Schurer (2012) show that the Big Five measures are
relatively stable over a 4-year period. Hence, covariates for personality for all years of
the HILDA survey can be generated.
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics (means and standard errors) for the sample of
employed workers based on gender and sexual orientation. Lesbians have the highest mean
wages followed by heterosexual men. Men are more likely to be employed full time than
women, and heterosexual workers are more likely to be employed full time than homosexual workers. The gay sample is younger than the heterosexual sample. Lesbians have
the highest incidence of postgraduate education, while heterosexual men have the highest
tenure in their occupation and their current job. Males are most likely to be employed full
time, while heterosexual females are least likely to be employed full time. Heterosexual
women have on average 1.4children, while lesbians have 0.4 and gay men have 0.2.
Clearly, heterosexual and homosexual workers differ on observable characteristics.
Table 2 reports descriptive statistics for occupational categories and the Big Five personality scores. Heterosexual women score higher across all Big Five measures. Higher
scores indicate greater accordance with the personality characteristic. No other discernible pattern across the groups is readily identified. For example, on some measures
(Agreeableness), lesbians report levels more similar to those of heterosexual women; on
others, they report results similar to men (Openness to experience, Conscientiousness).
Occupational differences are also apparent; heterosexual males are most likely to be in a
trade, while lesbians most likely to be professionals.

Empirical analysis
This section presents results of OLS and the BlinderOaxaca methods. The sample is
restricted to those who are employed. Sample sizes will differ across columns to reflect

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

68

The Economic and Labour Relations Review 26(1)

Table 1. Descriptive statistics by gender and sexuality.

Log real wages

Age
Postgraduate
Graduate diploma
Bachelor
Diploma
Certificate III
Certificate I or II
Other certificate
Year 12
Year 11
Work experience
(years)
Job tenure (years)
Labour force status
(full time)
No. children
Occupational tenure
(years)
Birthplace
(0=Australia)
Language (1=English
first language)
Works in small to
medium enterprise
Union member
Observations

Male
homosexual

Male
heterosexual

Female
homosexual

Female
heterosexual

3.061 (0.367)
38.440 (9.774)
0.022 (0.147)
0.121 (0.328)
0.143 (0.352)
0.110 (0.314)
0.231 (0.424)
0.033 (0.180)
0.000 (0.000)
0.242 (0.431)
0.099 (0.300)
19.443 (10.698)

3.107 (0.512)
38.001 (11.618)
0.050 (0.218)
0.055 (0.228)
0.152 (0.359)
0.087 (0.281)
0.280 (0.449)
0.012 (0.111)
0.001 (0.032)
0.168 (0.374)
0.195 (0.396)
19.432 (11.856)

3.197 (0.534)
36.564 (9.612)
0.114 (0.319)
0.141 (0.349)
0.255 (0.437)
0.114 (0.319)
0.268 (0.445)
0.000 (0.000)
0.000 (0.000)
0.074 (0.262)
0.034 (0.181)
15.824 (8.922)

2.992 (0.468)
38.654 (11.676)
0.040 (0.195)
0.085 (0.279)
0.190 (0.392)
0.104 (0.305)
0.150 (0.358)
0.014 (0.119)
0.005 (0.071)
0.190 (0.392)
0.222 (0.415)
17.104 (10.632)

5.099 (6.630)
0.934 (0.250)

7.057 (8.155)
0.887 (0.317)

4.621 (5.761)
0.705 (0.458)

5.955 (6.883)
0.542 (0.498)

0.242 (0.794)
8.739 (8.619)

1.328 (1.340)
9.264 (9.554)

0.403 (0.869)
5.924 (6.631)

1.414 (1.335)
8.245 (8.958)

0.308 (0.464)

0.183 (0.387)

0.161 (0.369)

0.187 (0.390)

0.923 (0.268)

0.928 (0.258)

0.973 (0.162)

0.915 (0.280)

0.451 (0.500)

0.647 (0.478)

0.570 (0.497)

0.672 (0.470)

0.297 (0.459)
91

0.301 (0.459)
16,958

0.423 (0.496)
149

0.280 (0.449)
17,416

Source: HILDA.
HILDA: Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia.
Standard deviations in brackets.

definitions of sexual orientation. In addition, when personality and partner characteristics are included, additional observations are dropped due to missing values. The numbers dropped in the latter cases are minimal and not considered important.
Table 3 shows the OLS estimates of the effect of sexual orientation on the log of hourly
wages for men and for women. All standard errors are clustered at the individual level to
account for correlation between individual observations over time as per Bertrand etal.
(2004). Controlling for basic observable characteristics, the effect of being gay is significant and negative for men. Gay men have approximately a 9% lower expected wage.
Once occupation is included, the expected hourly wage of a gay man with the same
observable characteristics is lower. This intuitively suggests that controlling for occupation increases the gap between the expected wage of a gay male and a heterosexual male,

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

69

La Nauze
Table 2. Descriptive statistics (personality, occupation) by gender and sexuality.
Male
homosexual

Male
heterosexual

Female
homosexual

Female
heterosexual

Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Emotional stability
Openness to
experience
Extroversion
Observations

4.077 (3.259)
4.286 (3.219)
3.480 (3.239)
3.383 (2.986)

4.155 (2.930)
4.242 (2.918)
4.254 (2.958)
3.446 (2.770)

4.054 (2.955)
4.539 (2.806)
4.184 (2.716)
3.372 (2.689)

4.560 (2.788)
4.890 (2.784)
4.488 (2.777)
3.543 (2.585)

3.057 (2.846)
86

3.469 (2.776)
14963

3.590 (2.616)
124

3.921 (2.687)
15,335

Manager
Professional
Trade
Community worker
Clerical
Sales
Plant and machinery
operator
Labourer
Observations

0.187 (0.392)
0.440 (0.499)
0.022 (0.147)
0.033 (0.180)
0.143 (0.352)
0.055 (0.229)
0.055 (0.229)

0.134 (0.340)
0.212 (0.409)
0.219 (0.414)
0.071 (0.258)
0.087 (0.281)
0.058 (0.235)
0.113 (0.316)

0.121 (0.327)
0.450 (0.499)
0.067 (0.251)
0.121 (0.327)
0.168 (0.375)
0.047 (0.212)
0.013 (0.115)

0.072 (0.258)
0.292 (0.455)
0.039 (0.194)
0.150 (0.357)
0.253 (0.435)
0.112 (0.315)
0.010 (0.099)

0.066 (0.250)
91

0.106 (0.307)
16,958

0.013 (0.115)
149

0.072 (0.258)
17,416

Source: HILDA.
HILDA: Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia.
Standard deviations in brackets.

and that gay men must on average therefore be employed in higher paid occupations.
However, the hypothesis that the coefficients are in fact the same cannot be rejected at any
reasonable confidence level. Intuitively, gay men are in general in higher paid occupations; controlling for this, the unexplained gap is higher. Similarly, wage gaps estimated
without the labour force status variable (controlling for part-time/full-time/casual employment status) do not affect the interpretation of the results.
Columns 34 present estimates when the sample of heterosexuals is restricted to those
living in a couple. Again, results with and without occupational controls are presented.
Restricting the sample to couples increases the point estimate of the gap. This is consistent with a generally identified marriage premium for heterosexual males. Once again,
including occupation actually increases the point estimates of the gap but not in a statistically significant way.
By contrast, changing the identification strategy to one in which a respondent is considered as homosexual for all waves of HILDA does change the estimate (column 6). The
effect of being gay now becomes marginally significant. This coefficient is not statistically different to the baseline (column 1); however, it is statistically different to that
obtained for the couples regression (column 4). The estimate could be affected by the
identification strategy and/or gay men could experience discrimination when they are
easily identifiable as homosexual in the workplace (i.e. when living with a same sex
partner).

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

0.093* (0.042)
17,049
0.282
99.847

0.130* (0.051)
17,565
0.232
100.887

0.113* (0.050)
17,565
0.276
107.459

0.133*** (0.038)
17,049
0.300
88.146

(2)

0.096 (0.051)
11,512
0.216
68.603

0.159*** (0.041)
11,669
0.225
52.599

(3)

0.086 (0.050)
11,512
0.261
72.320

0.182*** (0.038)
11,669
0.246
49.330

(4)

0.075 (0.050)
10,657
0.266
53.410

0.179*** (0.040)
11,306
0.250
38.521

(5)

0.125** (0.047)
17,565
0.276
107.497

0.088* (0.039)
17,049
0.300
88.082

(6)

0.128* (0.057)
15,459
0.289
82.955

0.136*** (0.033)
15,049
0.316
68.772

(7)

Clustered standard errors in parentheses.

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.
Sexuality is an indicator variable with 1=homosexual. Sexuality is identified by observation (columns 1-5,7), identified across the sample (column 6). Models are by
columns: (1) baseline model (2) with occupation controls (3) coupled respondents only (4) with occupation controls, coupled respondents only (5) with occupation
controls, partner characteristics, coupled respondents only (6) with occupation controls (7) with personality controls.
Source: HILDA.

Sexuality
N
R2
F

Female log hourly wages

Sexuality
N
R2
F

Male log hourly wages

(1)

Table 3. Male and female sexuality wage gaps identified using ordinary least squares.

70
The Economic and Labour Relations Review 26(1)

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

71

La Nauze

Column 7 presents estimates when controls for personality are included. The point
estimate is consistent with the baseline and suggests that personality does not explain the
lower hourly wages received by gay men. The estimated coefficients on personality variables suggest that there are lower returns to being agreeable and higher returns to being
conscientious. Other personality characteristics have no significant effect on wages. The
results are broadly consistent with the literature identifying the effects of personality on
wages (though Mueller and Plug (2006) and Nyhus and Pons (2012) find different traits
are significant). The results are also robust to the inclusion of covariates for occupation.
Finally, the inclusion of partner characteristics (column 5) does very little to change the
results. Consistently (but not reported here), the estimates on the coefficients of partner
characteristics are largely insignificant, although having a partner in full-time work does
reduce expected wages by a statistically significant amount. Coefficients on other
explanatory variables for models in columns (1), (3) and (7) are provided in Appendix 2.
The results for the sample restricted to women are reported in the second panel of
Table 3. The story revealed by these estimates is distinctly different from that for men.
First, the point estimates for all regressions are positive. Second, while the effect of
being in a same-sex relationship is marginally significant and positive in the original
sample (columns 12), the estimates become insignificant once the sample is restricted
to women in couples (columns 34). This is consistent with the idea of a marriage
premium for heterosexual women (however, the hypothesis that the coefficients are
the same as the baseline cannot be rejected). Although the effect of homosexuality is
insignificant when the characteristics of a womens partner are included, the point
estimate for whether or not this partner is employed full time is again negative and
significant (not reported).
Including controls for personality (column 7) marginally increases the point estimates,
suggesting that the premium received by lesbians is not due to the returns to personality
(again, this increase is not significant). As for men, the return to being agreeable is negative
and significant, while the return to being conscientious is positive. Overall, wages appear
to be less sensitive to personality for females.
When the alternative identification strategy for homosexuality is adopted, the estimates for the effect of homosexuality become (more) significant (column 6). Once occupation is included in the regression, the premium received by lesbians reduces, suggesting
that, like gay men, lesbians are in relatively high paying occupations (although the point
estimates are not statistically different). Once again, coefficients on other explanatory
variables for models in columns (1), (3) and (7) are provided in Appendix 2.
To allow coefficients on observable characteristics to vary in the wage equation, a
series of BlinderOaxaca decompositions was undertaken. The aggregate decompositions are of primary interest here and are presented in Table 4. The Difference reported
represents mean log wages of heterosexual men (women) minus mean log wages of
homosexual men (women). This can conveniently be interpreted as the percentage difference in wages between heterosexual and homosexual workers. A positive entry for
Endowments indicates that the contribution to the difference in mean log wages, evaluated at the coefficients of homosexual men (women), is positive. The interpretation of
the entry for Coefficients is similar. A positive entry indicates that the contribution to the
gap made by differences in coefficients is positive.

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

3.107*** (0.004)
3.061*** (0.027)
0.046 (0.027)
0.012 (0.079)
0.093*** (0.027)
0.035 (0.079)
17,049

3.107*** (0.004)
3.061*** (0.035)
0.046 (0.034)
0.095 (0.097)
0.133*** (0.030)
0.008 (0.095)
17,049

(2)

2.992*** (0.004)
3.197*** (0.042)
0.205*** (0.042)
0.044 (0.080)
0.130** (0.042)
0.030 (0.079)
17,565

2.992*** (0.004)
3.197*** (0.045)
0.205*** (0.045)
0.133 (0.095)
0.113** (0.039)
0.042 (0.095)
17,565

3.041*** (0.005)
3.197*** (0.051)
0.156** (0.051)
0.027 (0.131)
0.096* (0.044)
0.033 (0.123)
11,512

3.208*** (0.004)
3.064*** (0.030)
0.144*** (0.031)
0.049 (0.078)
0.159*** (0.031)
0.064 (0.083)
11,669

(3)

3.041*** (0.004)
3.197*** (0.049)
0.156** (0.049)
0.120 (0.131)
0.086 (0.047)
0.050 (0.130)
11,512

3.208*** (0.004)
3.064*** (0.033)
0.144*** (0.033)
0.010 (0.109)
0.183*** (0.029)
0.028 (0.109)
11,669

(4)

3.043*** (0.006)
3.197*** (0.048)
0.154** (0.048)
0.125 (0.131)
0.075 (0.043)
0.045 (0.132)
10,657

3.209*** (0.005)
3.064*** (0.034)
0.146*** (0.034)
0.018 (0.229)
0.179*** (0.032)
0.051 (0.226)
11,306

(5)

2.992*** (0.003)
3.184*** (0.039)
0.192*** (0.038)
0.141 (0.075)
0.125*** (0.036)
0.073 (0.070)
17,565

3.107*** (0.004)
3.107*** (0.038)
0.000 (0.038)
0.109 (0.081)
0.089* (0.035)
0.021 (0.077)
17,049

(6)

3.010*** (0.004)
3.210*** (0.051)
0.200*** (0.052)
0.129 (0.160)
0.128* (0.053)
0.058 (0.161)
15,459

3.124*** (0.004)
3.059*** (0.031)
0.065* (0.032)
0.162 (0.193)
0.136*** (0.030)
0.091 (0.194)
15,049

(7)

Clustered and bootstrapped standard errors in parentheses.

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.
Sexuality is identified by observation (columns 1-5,7), identified across the sample (column 6). Models are by columns: (1) baseline model (2) with occupation controls (3) coupled
respondents only (4) with occupation controls, coupled respondents only (5) with occupation controls, partner characteristics, coupled respondents only (6) with occupation controls
(7) with personality controls.
Source: HILDA.

Heterosexual
Homosexual
Difference
Endowments
Coefficients
Interaction
N

Female log hourly wage decompositions

Heterosexual
Homosexual
Difference
Endowments
Coefficients
Interaction
N

Male log hourly wage decompositions

(1)

Table 4. BlinderOaxaca wage decompositions by sexuality for males and females.

72
The Economic and Labour Relations Review 26(1)

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

73

La Nauze

The results of the aggregate decomposition for males are consistent with the OLS
results. There is no statistically significant difference in mean log wages of homosexual and heterosexual men with and without occupational controls. Changing the identification strategy for homosexuality (column 6) does not change this. When the sample
is restricted to couples (columns 35), there is a statistically significant difference in
mean log wages. The results indicate that the gap is driven by different returns to characteristics, not endowments of them. In fact, the differences in returns to characteristics over-explain the mean log wage gap, indicating that gay mens endowments must
make up for some of the gap due to lower returns to characteristics (though this effect
is not significant).
The results of the BlinderOaxaca decomposition also demonstrate that the returns to
characteristics are significantly different between heterosexual and homosexual men
even where there is no statistically significant difference in mean log wages. The detailed
decomposition results indicate that there is no statistically significant difference in the
returns to personality traits for gay and straight men (detailed results available on
request). Hence, being agreeable or extroverted affects wages in the same way regardless
of sexual orientation.
The decomposition of mean log wages of women is also consistent with the results of
the OLS model discussed above. In all cases, however, the differences in mean log wages
for heterosexual and homosexual women are statistically different, with lesbians attracting higher mean wages. As with men, none of this difference is due to differences in
endowments; all is due to differences in returns to characteristics (Coefficients).
Including the characteristics of partners (column 5) again has little effect on the estimates, and the results of the detailed composition indicate that there are no differences in
the returns to partner characteristics based on sexual orientation. Including personality
characteristics changes the estimate for the returns to characteristics by a small amount
(column 7). This intuitively suggests that different returns to personality between lesbian
and heterosexual women may exist. However, the fact that differences in endowments
remain statistically insignificant (the detailed decomposition results show no statistical
difference between the endowments of or the returns to personality traits) debunks the
potential link between the common stereotype of lesbians as having more masculine
personality traits and their tendency to be higher paid.

Discussion
Overall, the results indicate that there are significant differences in wages between heterosexual and homosexual workers that cannot be explained by observable characteristics. In addition to those listed above, further robustness checks on the results have been
undertaken, including aggregating education and occupational status. None of these
robustness checks alters the interpretation. The analysis demonstrates that personality
characteristics do not explain differences in wages based on sexual orientation for either
women or men. The results are well within the range of the existing literature and suggest
that previous results may be robust to the exclusion of personality controls. Gay men
suffer a gap, while lesbians receive a premium. The estimates for women are slightly less
robust than the estimates for men.

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

74

The Economic and Labour Relations Review 26(1)

Any theory of wage gaps must be able to explain these differences for gay men and
women. One view focuses on household specialisation (in home and market production)
and income. The effects of within-household specialisation are difficult to identify within
same-sex households because in the aggregate effect any penalties or premiums may
cancel out. In the analysis above, when the comparison group was restricted to couples,
the estimated gap for males changed (though not statistically), and for women, the gap
became insignificant. Including the characteristics of ones partner into the regression
made very little additional difference to the estimates. If anything, these results favour a
rejection of an income effect, suggesting in fact that partnered heterosexual women do
not invest less in human capital for market production than single women.
For men, the wage gap becomes larger when the sample is restricted to couples. This
could be interpreted as a marriage premium effect for heterosexual men that in turn
reflects differences in specialisation for heterosexual men that are not apparent for men
in gay couples. However, controlling for partner characteristics does not change the estimated gaps. This indicates that income is not a likely explanation. At the same time, the
effect of having a partner work full time is the same for women and men. This is inconsistent with the notion that gender-based income effects are likely to impact female, male
and mixed gender households differently. There is therefore a lack of empirical support
for the household specialisation explanation for sexual orientation wage gaps.
Do the estimated gaps indicate discrimination in the Australian labour market? To be
able to interpret the identified differences as wage discrimination, the joint distribution
of unobservable characteristics and observable characteristics must not systematically
differ across heterosexual and homosexual workers. Unfortunately, there is no way of
rigorously assessing the extent to which this is the case. It is not unreasonable to suggest
that unobserved investments in human capital would differ between heterosexual and
homosexual workers (Black etal., 2003). For example, the fact that heterosexual women
are more likely to have children and work part time (two potential indicators of specialisation) suggests that they may also differ along unobservable characteristics. However,
this simple fact is not sufficient to violate ignorability. To do so, one must be able to
argue that given observable characteristics, unobservable productivity characteristics
still differ between gay and straight women. One potential avenue for this is via expectations of having children. For women in particular, if the expectation of having children
is correlated with unobserved investments in human capital, then the estimates of the
wage premium for lesbians would be biased. On the other hand, if employers interpret
women being in a same sex relationship as reducing their likelihood of child-bearing,
then they may also reward lesbians with higher pay. A lack of other explanations and the
robustness of the identified gaps for males suggest that in the case of gay men in particular, direct discrimination may be a reasonable conjecture.
The estimated gaps in this article reflect differences in wages that cannot be attributed
to observable characteristics. If observable characteristics are themselves a response to
discrimination, and these characteristics lower productivity, then the total effect of discrimination on wages is higher. This form of discrimination will not be picked up here.
The estimates in this article are conditional on observable characteristics. Intuitively, if
gay men acquire lower levels of education because of discrimination in educational institutions and education increases wages, then the true impact of discrimination on wages

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

75

La Nauze

is greater than the effect I present. Here I am interested in whether gay men are paid less
than heterosexual men given equal productivity. In a sense, whether exactly the same
man is paid less merely due to his sexual preference. The results suggest that this may
indeed be the case in Australia.

Conclusion
Using data from the household panel HILDA, I have established that there are significant
unexplained gaps in wages along lines of sexual orientation. In Australia, women in samesex relationships earn a positive wage premium of 0%13%, whereas men in same-sex
relationships experience a negative wage premium of 8%18% depending on the model.
These gaps are economically significant and consistent with those found internationally.
This article suggests that there are grounds for concern that workers in Australia, particularly gay men, are discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.
This is the first article to control directly for personality traits in explaining the sexual
orientation wage gap, based on work by Nyhus and Pons (2005, 2012). Using OLS and
BlinderOaxaca decomposition methods, the battery of these personality traits is explicitly included in wage regressions. Personality traits are clearly not the driving factor
behind the sexual orientation wage gap.
Wage discrimination is both morally reprehensible and economically inefficient. The
purpose of this study was to investigate whether in Australia there are grounds for concern
that workers may suffer wage discrimination due to their sexual orientation. That is, it sought
to provide evidence that individuals may be underpaid as a result of nothing other than their
sexual preference. The article does not provide evidence for or against other forms of discrimination. On the whole, the results suggest there are some grounds for concern. However,
taking the results of this study alone, it is not possible to draw strong policy recommendations. A range of possible policy mechanisms, including better enforcement of existing antidiscrimination provisions, education and incentive mechanisms are all possible remedies to
the identified wage gaps. Further research however is required to understand how and why
these wage gaps occur, and what the most effective mechanisms for tackling them may be.
Supplemental Material
Supplementary Material for this article can be found at the following link: http://elr.sagepub.com/
content/by/supplemental-data

Acknowledgements
I sincerely thank Professor John Haisken-DeNew for his guidance and helpful comments and thanks
to whom this paper exists. I also thank participants in the 2013 Household Income and Labour
Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Conference in Melbourne, Australia, three anonymous referees
and the Area Editor. This paper uses unit record data from the Household, Income and Labour
Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. The HILDA Project was initiated and is funded by the
Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs (FaHCSIA) and is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social
Research (Melbourne Institute). The findings and views reported in this paper, however, are those
of the author and should not be attributed to either FaHCSIA or the Melbourne Institute.

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

76

The Economic and Labour Relations Review 26(1)

Funding
The project was undertaken as part of PhD research.

Notes
1. The data used in this article were extracted using the Add-On package PanelWhiz v3.0 (Nov
2010) for Stata. PanelWhiz was written by Dr John P. Haisken-DeNew (john@panelwhiz.eu).
The PanelWhiz-generated DO file to retrieve the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in
Australia (HILDA) data used here and any Panelwhiz Plugins are available upon request. Any
data or computational errors in this article are my own. Haisken-DeNew and Hahn (2010)
describe PanelWhiz in detail.
2. Wages are deflated using Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
(2012) deflators with 2005 as the base year. Observations with missing values were discarded.

References
Ahmed AM and Hammarstedt M (2010) Sexual orientation and earnings: a register data-based
approach to identify homosexuals. Journal of Population Economics 23: 835849.
Allegretto SA and Arthur MM (2001) An empirical analysis of homosexual/heterosexual male
earnings differentials: unmarried and unequal? Industrial and Labor Relations Review 54(3):
658686.
Antecol H, Jong A and Steinberger M (2007) The sexual orientation wage gap: the role of occupational sorting, and human capital? Industrial and Labor Relations Review 61: 518.
Arabsheibani GR, Marin A and Wadsworth J (2005) Gay pay in the UK. Economica 72(286):
333347.
Arulampalam W, Booth AL and Bryan ML (2007) Is there a glass ceiling over Europe? Exploring
the gender pay gap across the wage distribution. Industrial and Labor Relations Review
60(2): 163186.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2013) Australian social trends. Cat no. 4102.0, July.
Canberra, ACT, Australia: ABS.
Badgett L (1995) The wage effects of sexual orientation discrimination. Industrial and Labor
Relations Review 48(4): 726739.
Badgett L (2006) Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation: A Review of the Literature in
Economics and beyond. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 116186.
Becker GS (1971) The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Becker GS (1981) A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Berg N and Lien D (2002) Measuring the effect of sexual orientation on income: evidence of discrimination? Contemporary Economic Policy 20(4): 394414.
Bertrand M, Duflo E and Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust difference-in-differences
estimates? Quarterly Journal of Economics 19(1): 249275.
Black DA, Makar HR, Sanders SG, etal. (2003) The earnings effects of sexual orientation.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review 56(3): 449469.
Blashill AJ and Powlishta KK (2009) The impact of sexual orientation and gender role on evaluations of men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity 10(2): 160173.
Blinder AS (1973) Wage discrimination: reduced form and structural estimates. Journal of Human
Resources 8(4): 436455.
Bowles S, Gintis H and Osborne M (2001) Incentive-enhancing preferences: personality, behavior,
and earnings. The American Economic Review 91(2): 155158.
Carpenter CS (2008) Sexual orientation, work, and income in Canada. Canadian Journal of
Economics 41(4): 12391261.

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

77

La Nauze

Clarke G and Sevak P (2013) The disappearing gay income penalty. Economics Letters 121(3):
542545.
Cobb-Clark DA and Schurer S (2012) The stability of big-five personality traits. Economics
Letters 115(1): 1115.
Elmslie B and Tebaldi E (2007) Sexual orientation and labor market discrimination. Journal of
Labor Research 28(3): 436453.
Fortin N, Lemieux T and Firpo S (2010) Decomposition methods in economics. Technical report
working paper no. 16045, June. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Haisken-DeNew JP and Hahn M (2010) Panelwhiz: efficient data extraction of complex panel data
sets an example using the German SOEP. Journal of Applied Social Science Studies 130(4):
643654.
Jann B (2008) The Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition for linear regression models. Stata Journal
8(4): 453479.
Kite ME and Deaux K (1987) Gender belief systems: homosexuality and the implicit inversion
theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly 11(1): 8396.
Klawitter MM and Flatt V (1998) The effects of state and local anti-discrimination policies on
earnings for gays and lesbians. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17(4): 658686.
Madon S (1997) What do people believe about gay males? A study of stereotype content and
strength. Sex Roles 37(9): 663685.
Mueller G and Plug E (2006) Estimating the effect of personality on male and female earnings.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review 60(1): 322.
Nyhus EK and Pons E (2005) The effects of personality on earnings. Journal of Economic
Psychology 26(3): 363384.
Nyhus EK and Pons E (2012) Personality and the gender wage gap. Applied Economics 44(1):
105118.
Oaxaca R (1973) Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. International Economic
Review 14(3): 693709.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2012) Consumer prices
(MEI). Available at: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=MEI_PRICES (accessed
29 May 2012).
Plug E and Berkhout PH (2004) Effects of sexual preferences on earnings in the Netherlands.
Journal of Population Economics 17(1): 117131.
Plug E and Berkhout PH (2008) Sexual orientation, disclosure and earnings. Report, Institute for
the Study of Labor (IZA) discussion paper no. 3290, January. Bonn: IZA.
Summerfield M, Freidin S, Hahn M, et al. (2013) HILDA User Manual Release 12. p. 51. Available
at: https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/hilda/User%20Manual/HILDA_User_
Manual_Release_12.2.pdf (accessed 22 July 2014).

Author biography
Andrea La Nauze is a PhD student in Economics at the University of Melbourne. She holds a
Masters of Economics, a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Commerce (Honours). She is an
applied econometrician with a strong policy focus. Her primary field is environmental economics.
Prior to commencing the PhD, she was Senior Economist in the Department of Sustainability and
Environment in the Victorian Government.

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

78

The Economic and Labour Relations Review 26(1)

Appendix 1
Measurement of the Big Five personality traits in Household Income and
Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA)
The following text explains the construction of the Big Five personality measures. It has
been reproduced from the HILDA User Manual.
In wave 5, respondents were questioned on their personality character traits using a
36-item inventory. The approach used was based on the trait descriptive adjectives
approach used by Saucier (1994), which in turn was based on the approach employed by
Goldberg (1992), both of which assume a 5-factor structure (as is commonly assumed in
the literature). Not all 36 items, however, are used in the five derived scales summarising
the five personality factors. First, the ex ante scales were tested for item reliability, with
any items omitted if item total correlation was less than 0.3. Second, principal components analysis with a five-factor solution was undertaken, with items only retained if
their highest factor loading was on the expected factor, exceeded 0.4 and exceeded the
second highest factor loading by at least 0.1. A slightly different approach to derivation
of these scales, but which obtains identical conclusions, is provided in Losoncz (2009).
The five scales based on the Big Five are composed by taking the average of the
following items:
Extroversion talkative, bashful (reversed), quiet (reversed), shy (reversed),
lively and extroverted.
Agreeableness sympathetic, kind, cooperative and warm.
Conscientiousness orderly, systematic, inefficient (reversed), sloppy (reversed),
disorganised (reversed) and efficient.
Emotional stability envious (reversed), moody (reversed), touchy (reversed),
jealous (reversed), temperamental (reversed) and fretful (reversed).
Openness to experience deep, philosophical, creative, intellectual, complex and
imaginative.
The higher the score, the better that personality character trait describes the respondent. The items and derived scales were repeated in wave 9.
Source: Summerfield etal. (2013).

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

Age
Postgraduate
Graduate diploma
Bachelor
Diploma
Certificate III
Certificate I or II
Other certificate
Year 12
Year 11
Work experience
(years)
New South Wales
Victoria
Queensland
South Australia
Western Australia
Tasmania
Northern Territory
Australian Capital
Territory

0.006** (0.002)
0.590*** (0.062)
0.489*** (0.061)
0.475*** (0.058)
0.312*** (0.058)
0.180** (0.055)
0.000 (.)
0.115 (0.091)
0.182** (0.057)
0.052 (0.055)
0.010*** (0.002)
0.078* (0.039)
0.104** (0.039)
0.132*** (0.039)
0.179*** (0.043)
0.029 (0.043)
0.228*** (0.045)
0.018 (0.063)
0.000 (.)

0.003 (0.002)
0.664*** (0.085)
0.548*** (0.084)
0.555*** (0.082)
0.382*** (0.082)
0.266*** (0.080)
0.039 (0.100)
0.000 (.)
0.214** (0.081)
0.099 (0.080)
0.009*** (0.002)

0.065 (0.052)
0.090 (0.053)
0.107* (0.052)
0.155** (0.055)
0.040 (0.054)
0.224*** (0.057)
0.000 (.)
0.000 (0.061)

0.039 (0.035)
0.067 (0.035)
0.073* (0.035)
0.119** (0.039)
0.014 (0.039)
0.171*** (0.042)
0.020 (0.060)
0.000 (.)

0.002 (0.002)
0.533*** (0.079)
0.429*** (0.078)
0.453*** (0.075)
0.322*** (0.075)
0.255*** (0.073)
0.043 (0.093)
0.000 (.)
0.196** (0.074)
0.111 (0.073)
0.009*** (0.002)
0.092*** (0.026)
0.150*** (0.026)
0.164*** (0.026)
0.165*** (0.029)
0.121*** (0.029)
0.175*** (0.034)
0.091 (0.051)
0.000 (.)

0.000 (0.001)
0.566*** (0.036)
0.482*** (0.033)
0.426*** (0.031)
0.275*** (0.032)
0.120*** (0.030)
0.000 (.)
0.016 (0.066)
0.148*** (0.030)
0.051 (0.030)
0.005*** (0.001)
0.019 (0.066)
0.078 (0.066)
0.087 (0.066)
0.069 (0.067)
0.052 (0.068)
0.113 (0.069)
0.000 (.)
0.061 (0.070)

0.002 (0.001)
0.570*** (0.040)
0.472*** (0.036)
0.431*** (0.033)
0.278*** (0.035)
0.108** (0.033)
0.000 (.)
0.006 (0.075)
0.170*** (0.034)
0.057 (0.032)
0.004** (0.001)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

Female log hourly wages

Male log hourly wages

Appendix 2. Male and female sexuality wage gaps identified using ordinary least squares.

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

(Continued)

0.049 (0.028)
0.117*** (0.028)
0.116*** (0.028)
0.120*** (0.031)
0.091** (0.030)
0.135*** (0.035)
0.048 (0.047)
0.000 (.)

0.001 (0.001)
0.361*** (0.039)
0.278*** (0.035)
0.251*** (0.033)
0.168*** (0.033)
0.070* (0.031)
0.000 (.)
0.020 (0.059)
0.087** (0.031)
0.023 (0.031)
0.003* (0.001)

(6)

La Nauze
79

Job tenure (years)

Labour force status
(full time)
No. children
Occupational
tenure (years)
Birthplace
(0=Australia)
Language
(0=English first
language)
Works in small to
medium enterprise
Union member
Sexuality
Manager
Professional
Trade
Community worker
Clerical
Sales
0.010 (0.006)
0.003*** (0.001)
0.002 (0.021)
0.089** (0.031)
0.166*** (0.013)
0.020 (0.013)
0.159*** (0.041)

0.025 (0.019)

0.069* (0.028)

0.180*** (0.011)

0.033** (0.012)
0.093* (0.042)

0.002** (0.001)
0.087*** (0.023)

0.025*** (0.005)
0.004*** (0.001)

0.002* (0.001)
0.105*** (0.016)

0.052*** (0.012)
0.136*** (0.033)
0.218*** (0.025)
0.186*** (0.025)
0.047* (0.023)
0.072** (0.026)
0.067** (0.024)
0.000 (.)

0.171*** (0.011)

0.046 (0.030)

0.017 (0.020)

0.021*** (0.005)
0.004*** (0.001)

0.001 (0.001)
0.074*** (0.017)

0.028** (0.010)
0.131* (0.051)

0.102*** (0.009)

0.021 (0.022)

0.018 (0.015)

0.013* (0.005)
0.004*** (0.001)

0.004*** (0.001)
0.003 (0.009)

0.018 (0.012)
0.096 (0.051)

0.107*** (0.011)

0.022 (0.026)

0.000 (0.017)

0.005 (0.006)
0.004*** (0.001)

0.005*** (0.001)
0.021 (0.011)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

Female log hourly wages

Male log hourly wages

Appendix 2. (Continued)

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

(Continued)

0.030** (0.010)
0.128* (0.057)
0.232*** (0.028)
0.220*** (0.025)
0.000 (.)
0.026 (0.025)
0.072** (0.024)
0.067** (0.025)

0.100*** (0.009)

0.018 (0.022)

0.021 (0.015)

0.010 (0.005)
0.002*** (0.001)

0.003** (0.001)
0.039*** (0.009)

(6)

80
The Economic and Labour Relations Review 26(1)

Downloaded from elr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on February 27, 2015

2.664*** (0.111)
17,049
0.282
99.847

Clustered standard errors in parentheses.

*p<0.05; ** p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

Plant and
machinery operator
Labourer
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional stability
Extroversion
Openness to
experience
Constant
Observations
R2
F
2.940*** (0.090)
11,669
0.225
52.599

2.768*** (0.050)
17,565
0.232
100.887

2.835*** (0.078)
11,512
0.216
68.603

2.809*** (0.055)
15,459
0.289
82.955

0.142*** (0.031)
0.014* (0.006)
0.015** (0.005)
0.004 (0.005)
0.008 (0.004)
0.008 (0.005)

0.043 (0.024)
0.039*** (0.008)
0.032*** (0.007)
0.003 (0.006)
0.002 (0.006)
0.012 (0.007)
2.650*** (0.100)
15,049
0.316
68.772

0.007 (0.050)

(6)

0.045 (0.024)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

Female log hourly wages

Male log hourly wages

Appendix 2. (Continued)

La Nauze
81